Epistemic deontologism and the voluntarist strategy against doxastic involuntarism

According to the deontological conception of epistemic justification, a belief is justified when it is our obligation or duty as rational creatures to believe it. However, this view faces an important objection according to which we cannot have such epistemic obligations since our beliefs are never under our voluntary control. One possible strategy against this argument is to show that we do have voluntary control over some of our beliefs, and that we therefore have epistemic obligations. This is what I call the voluntarist strategy. I examine it and argue that it is not promising. I show how the voluntarist attempts of Carl Ginet and Brian Weatherson fail, and conclude that it would be more fruitful for deontologists to look for a different strategy.

Skepticism and epistemic closure : two Bayesian accounts

Peer reviewed

Skepticism and epistemic closure : two Bayesian accounts

Peer reviewed

A puzzle for philosophers

In the paper I tackle a puzzle by Goldberg (2009) that challenges all of us as philosophers. There are three plausible thesis, separately defensible, that together seem to lead to a contradiction: 1) Reliability is a necessary condition for epistemic justification. 2) On contested matters in philosophy, philosophers are not reliable. 3) At least some philosophical theses regarding contested matters in philosophy are epistemically justified. In this paper I will assess the status of the puzzle and attempt to solve it. In the first section, I'll present the puzzle with a little more detail. Secondly, I'll provide some general arguments to show that the alleged puzzle is not a legitimate one. Finally, in section 3, I will argue that even assuming that the puzzle can be coherently formulated, Goldberg's arguments in favor of premise (2) are either unsound or too limited in their scope in order to represent a significant or interesting problem for philosophers.

Putting the horse before the cart: a pragmatist analysis of knowledge

The definition of knowledge as justified true belief is the best we presently have. However, the canonical tripartite analysis of knowledge does not do justice to it due to a Platonic conception of a priori truth that puts the cart before the horse. Within a pragmatic approach, I argue that by doing away with a priori truth, namely by submitting truth to justification, and by accordingly altering the canonical analysis of knowledge, this is a fruitful definition. So fruitful indeed that it renders the Gettier counterexamples vacuous, allowing positive work in epistemology and related disciplines.

Défense et illustration de l'infinitisme épistémique

Ce mémoire se concentre sur le problème de la régression épistémique. Il s’agit d’un problème très important puisqu’il remet en question la possibilité de la justification. Nous nous intéresserons aux détails de ce problème, ainsi qu’aux réponses qui lui sont offertes. Traditionnellement, deux réponses sont concurrentes : le fondationnalisme et le cohérentisme. La première propose d’arrêter la régression à un fondement, alors que la seconde propose de s’intéresser à la cohérence partagée par les croyances. Toutefois, le but de notre mémoire est de présenter et de défendre une troisième solution : l’infinitisme. Introduite dans les années 1990 par Peter Klein, l’infinitisme est une des plus récentes théories de la justification et, malgré son intérêt, elle est encore très peu défendue. Cette théorie propose de résoudre le problème de la régression en basant la justification des croyances sur des séries infinies et non répétitives de raisons. Cette idée est intéressante, car l’infinitisme renverse le problème d’origine, puisque les régressions infinies sont généralement perçues comme étant un problème pour la connaissance et la source du scepticisme. Notre objectif est de montrer que l’infinitisme est la meilleure solution possible au problème de la régression. Pour ce faire, nous faisons la synthèse des principaux arguments pour l’infinitisme. Cela nous permettra de distinguer trois types d’infinitisme pour ensuite retenir un de ces types, une forme impure d’infinitisme, comme étant le meilleur. Finalement, nous confronterons l’infinitisme à ces critiques pour montrer qu’il s’agit d’une théorie de la justification qui est réellement viable.

An Epistemic Argument in Support of Liberal Neutrality

My aim in the present paper is to develop a new kind of argument in support of the ideal of liberal neutrality. This argument combines some basic moral principles with a thesis about the relationship between the correct standards of justification for a belief/action and certain contextual factors. The idea is that the level of importance of what is at stake in a specific context of action determines how demanding the correct standards to justify an action based on a specific set of beliefs ought to be. In certain exceptional contexts –where the seriousness of harm in case of mistake and the level of an agent’s responsibility for the outcome of his action are specially high– a very small probability of making a mistake should be recognized as a good reason to avoid to act based on beliefs that we nonetheless affirm with a high degree of confidence and that actually justify our action in other contexts. The further steps of the argument consist in probing 1) that the fundamental state’s policies are such a case of exceptional context, 2) that perfectionist policies are the type of actions we should avoid, and 3) that policies that satisfy neutral standards of justification are not affected by the reasons which lead to reject perfectionist policies.

Logical and epistemic foundationalism about grounding: the triviality of facts and principles

In this paper, I seek to undermine G.A. Cohen’s polemical use of a metaethical claim he makes in his article, ‘Facts and Principles’, by arguing that that use requires an unsustainable equivocation between epistemic and logical grounding. I begin by distinguishing three theses that Cohen has offered during the course of his critique of Rawls and contractualism more generally, the foundationalism about grounding thesis, the justice as non-regulative thesis, and the justice as all-encompassing thesis, and briefly argue that they are analytically independent of each other. I then offer an outline of the foundationalism about grounding thesis, characterising it, as Cohen does, as a demand of logic. That thesis claims that whenever a normative principle is dependent on a fact, it is so dependent in virtue of some other principle. I then argue that although this is true as a matter of logic, it, as Cohen admits, cannot be true of actual justifications, since logic cannot tell us anything about the truth as opposed to the validity of arguments. Facts about a justification cannot then be decisive for whether or not a given argument violates the foundationalism about grounding thesis. As long as, independently of actual justifications, theorists can point to plausible logically grounding principles, as I argue contractualists can, Cohen’s thesis lacks critical bite.

Lower complexity bounds in justification logic

Justification Logic studies epistemic and provability phenomena by introducing justifications/proofs into the language in the form of justification terms. Pure justification logics serve as counterparts of traditional modal epistemic logics, and hybrid logics combine epistemic modalities with justification terms. The computational complexity of pure justification logics is typically lower than that of the corresponding modal logics. Moreover, the so-called reflected fragments, which still contain complete information about the respective justification logics, are known to be in~NP for a wide range of justification logics, pure and hybrid alike. This paper shows that, under reasonable additional restrictions, these reflected fragments are NP-complete, thereby proving a matching lower bound. The proof method is then extended to provide a uniform proof that the corresponding full pure justification logics are $\Pi^p_2$-hard, reproving and generalizing an earlier result by Milnikel.

Is There Justification For Universal Leukoreduction?

36

Concentration inequalities and laws of large numbers under epistemic and regular irrelevance

This paper presents concentration inequalities and laws of large numbers under weak assumptions of irrelevance that are expressed using lower and upper expectations. The results build upon De Cooman and Miranda`s recent inequalities and laws of large numbers. The proofs indicate connections between the theory of martingales and concepts of epistemic and regular irrelevance. (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

The study of public administration in India, the Philippines, Canada and Australia: the universal struggle against epistemic colonization, and toward critical assimilation

The study of public administration has been characterized as a strong international focus, as both governments and scholars have sought to learn from the experience of other societies. While in a perfect world, one would expect a sort of pragmatic universalism, instead, many scholars tend to bring lessons from one country, or from a single cultural reality. This modest contribution lies in showing a series of national experiences rarely brought to the discourse about public administration in Brazil: Canada, Australia, India and the Philippines. Special emphasis will be given to the following: the origins and the development of public administration; the influence of ideology; and the complex tension between global theory and local practices.

Governmental start-up support in the light of allocative market failure : justification, analysis, and design

Magdeburg, Univ., Fak. für Wirtschaftswiss., Diss., 2011

Assessment of current anglo-saxon proposals about criminal justice and the justification of legal punishment: Moore, Duff and Finnis on retribution, and the challenging compatibility with the up-and-coming Restorative Justice

Pendent